1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to the field of analysis of biological samples, both solids and liquids, e. g., urinalysis, and, in particular, to apparatus and method for conducting analysis of biological samples without the need for reagents. This invention also relates to detection of adulteration of samples of biological fluid to protect the integrity of analysis results.
2. Discussion of the Art
Determining the concentration of an analyte or a parameter of physical condition in a biological sample has been an important area in the field of diagnostics. Analytes that have diagnostic value includes nutrients, metabolites, enzymes, immunity entities, hormones, and pathogens. The physical characteristics of a biological sample, such as temperature, optical properties, density, and hardness, are also of interest because of their capability of providing indications for diagnostic purposes. Most determination methods use signal-enhancing agents.
Urinalysis involves measuring critical components in a sample of urine to determine the condition of the body with respect to diseases and other substances, e. g., drugs. Urine contains a wide variety of substances. In current urinalysis systems, such as those provided by Bayer and Boehringer Mannheim, the analytes measured include glucose, bilirubin, ketones (80% 3-hydroxybutyrate, 17% acetoacetic acid, 3% acetone), blood (or hemoglobin), protein, urobilinogen, nitrites, and leukocytes. Specific gravity (or refractive index) and pH are also measured. In some cases, measurement of creatinine is suggested, but is not provided by Bayer's or Boehringer Mannheim's urinalysis systems. All of these analytes represent breakdown products of metabolism from various organ systems. The pattern of excretion is indicative of various disease states. The history and utility of urinalysis is discussed in Voswinckel, Peter, “A marvel of colors and ingredients. The story of urine test strips”, Kidney International, Vol. 46, Suppl. 47 (1994), pp. S-3-S-7, and Free, Alfred H. & Free, Helen M., “Urinalysis: Its Proper Role in the Physician's Office”, Office Practice of Laboratory Medicine, Clinics in Laboratory Medicine—Vol. 6, No. 2, June 1986, both of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Urinalysis testing is also used as a means to determine which samples of urine need to be examined by microscopy, which is such an expensive and time-consuming procedure that it cannot be performed on all urine samples with current methods. Microscopic examination of urine sediment can confirm the presence of bacterial infection, or white cells, indicating infection or kidney damage, among other indications.
The majority of urinalysis testing is accomplished by means of dip and read strip technology supplied by Bayer and Boehringer Mannheim. Strip technology is well understood and suffers from a number of limitations. Readings must be properly timed to obtain accurate results. Controls must be employed. Urine samples must be well mixed and at room temperature. Strips are sensitive to light and humidity, and must be stored and handled properly. Quantitative results are difficult to obtain. Interfering substances can cause incorrect readings.
Abuse of drugs and other substances is recognized as a significant problem in the United States, and is now being recognized in other parts of the world. As a result, more people are being tested in routine drug screening programs than ever before. In the United States, about 10% of the population is estimated to abuse drugs or alcohol, and about 70% of those are employed. Business and government organizations in the United States will spend about $725,000,000 in 1998 to test selected populations to determine whether their performance may be impaired by abuse of depressants, hallucinogens, hypnotics/sedatives, or stimulants. In most cases, the sample tested is urine. Consequences of failing a routine drug screen can be severe, e. g., loss of employment or loss of freedom if testing is performed for the criminal justice system, and these consequences have led to the development of an industry designed to “beat” a drug test. Drug testing can be “beaten” by simply diluting the sample with water, apple juice, or similar materials. Drug testing can also be “beaten” by attacking the macromolecules and indicators used in the testing systems with materials such as acids, bases, nitrites, and glutaraldehyde, among others.
While estimates of the extent of adulteration are difficult to obtain and some evidence suggests that they vary with the populations tested, estimates of adulteration range as high as 30% of urine samples submitted for testing. The drug of abuse assay system using Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique (EMIT) is a major high-speed screening tool for drugs of abuse, but it is also among the most sensitive systems to failures caused by sample adulteration. Systems based on fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) are more robust, but are not immune from failures caused by adulterated samples.
To achieve the social purpose of deterring drug abuse by testing of urine, it is essential to assure the integrity of the samples of urine. Sample integrity can be assured by “observed” collection. However, such a stringent method is applicable only in special situations, and is costly. Legal considerations require a thoroughly documented chain of custody for each sample. A system configuration that permits a check for sample adulteration and simultaneously sequesters the sample for further testing such as GC/mass spectrometry, or for archiving, may be advantageous. The integrity of a urine sample can also be judged by measuring specific gravity, pH, creatinine level, and temperature of the sample before committing the sample to further tests that employ costly reagents. Low levels of creatinine may indicate dilution of the sample. An abnormally low or high value of pH indicates the addition of acid or base. Altered specific gravity indicates the addition of foreign materials, such as apple juice or salts, that may alter test results. If the temperature of a urine sample is unexpectedly low, it may indicate that a sample was substituted, and if the temperature of a urine sample is unexpectedly high, it may indicate that a sample was substituted or that a chemical reaction took place. By ensuring sample integrity, potentially adulterated samples may be rejected for testing, and unadulterated samples may be recollected more quickly, thereby assuring the accuracy of the test results, and preventing impaired individuals from endangering the safety of the public.
There are several methods for measuring creatinine. The oldest, the Jaffee method, requires temperature control for accurate results. The 3,5-DiNitroBenzoic Acid (DNBA) method (similar to the Jaffee method) has been adapted to strips for a serum assay. Both methods have been commercialized with as many as four enzymes by Kodak. When measured with long wavelength infrared radiation, creatinine provides the second strongest signal in urine. Hence, infrared spectroscopy utilizing multivariate mathematical analysis is able to “pick-out” creatinine with a high degree of precision and specificity.
The amount of dissolved solids in urine is typically measured by refractive index measurement (the gold standard) or by specific gravity measurements. Measurements of refractive index and specific gravity in urine are highly correlated, as shown by studies of samples of patients in hospitals.
pH is a measure of acid or base content of the urine sample. Standard laboratory practice makes use of a pH electrodes for accurate pH measurements. Miniature pH electrodes have been demonstrated by Nova Biomedical (Waltham, Mass.) in their instruments and by others. Bayer has a block on a calorimetric strip that measures pH in urine with reasonable accuracy for the normal range of pH in urine (4.6-8.0).
It would be desirable to provide a method and a device for analysis of biological samples and detection of sample adulteration that does not encounter the disadvantages of a system based on reagent-containing strips. In a reagentless system, the stability, storage, and shelf life issues of reagents would be of no concern. In a reagentless system, the method could be automated and would not require precise timing by the user. Interfering substances could be detected and incorrect readings could be minimized. Proper controls could be incorporated into the system and could be transparent to the user. Quantitative readings could be performed better, and larger dynamic ranges than can be provided by reagent-containing strips could be made available. A reagentless system has the additional advantage that it can be adapted to possible future expansion of adulterants when the features of those adulterants become known. If needed, a reagentless system could also be integrated with a reagent-using system to provide a broader menu, better performance, and higher throughput.